Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1214 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2020 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh, S/o Kedarnath Singh, R/o VillageMadhurapur, P.S. - Bidupur, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 172 of 2020, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, the husband of the informant was shot dead by the petitioner and other co-accused persons in the background of demand of Rs. 20 lacs as extortion money from the husband of the informant which was not paid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1214 of 2022(3) dt.10-08-2022 2/3 and as further alleged, the petitioner and other co-accused under a conspiracy called out the husband of the informant for meeting where he was killed.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that except for the allegation made by the informant on suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner as it is obvious that the informant was not an eye witness. Same allegation has been made in general terms against this petitioner and five other co-accused persons. It is also apparent from the FIR that there was political rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased and for this reason, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned senior counsel further submits that one Ramesh Kumar Yadav was apprehended by the police and he confessed that he and other co-accused persons murdered the husband of the informant, but not named this petitioner for being involved in the occurrence.
Learned senior counsel further submits that some other co-accused persons have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court in Cr. Misc. Nos. 28682 of 2020, 22695 of 2021 and 17406 of 2021 and the case of this petitioner is similarly placed. The charge sheet has been submitted in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 06.09.2021.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1214 of 2022(3) dt.10-08-2022 3/3 Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that witnesses in the case diary have supported the prosecution case. There is specific allegation against this petitioner that the husband of the informant was murdered under a conspiracy hatched by this petitioner and the informant was converged this fact by the victim just before his death.
Perused the records.
Having regard to the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner for committing the murder of the husband of the informant under a conspiracy with some other accused persons making his case different from other coaccused who have been granted bail, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months. If the trial is not concluded within nine months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T